To Catch a Predator

March 05, 2010

During the week, a reader emailed me a link to the now defunct American TV program To Catch a Predator.

If you've not heard of it, it's a reality TV show in which Dateline NBC basically entraps men who have contacted boys and girls for sex in internet chat rooms, believing them to be below the age of consent.

The men are then asked to bring condoms, booze or food and lured to a house wired with cameras where they meet a young-looking decoy they think is going to have sex with them.

It's grubby television no doubt, but there's no denying an incredible number of creepy men are drawn out of the woodwork: doctors, lawyers, school teachers, soldiers, bus drivers, even rabbis ...

Now, I'm sure many of you, like various American and British critics will have a problem with the methods of this TV show but, really, all you have to do is sit through one segment to see the men it exposes are up to no good.

Man, after man, after man, after man trot out the "I wasn't going to do anything", "we were just going to hang out", "I wouldn't have done anything" excuses after having driven miles and sometimes hours to get to a house where they thought a 12-, 13- or 14-year-old boy or girl was waiting to have sex with them.

When confronted with the sexually explicit chat logs of their conversations with people they thought were minors - often discussing the illegality of what they are doing - the lies roll out thick and fast: "I was joking", "it was playful chat", "I say that to everyone".

What staggers me about this show are the sheer numbers of men caught, with some sweeps netting 10, 25, up to 50 men who turn up at the decoy house, absolutely aware they are meeting a supposed minor.

The engine of the show is an online vigilante group called Perverted Justice, which uses adult operatives to pose as minors in internet chat rooms. The operatives then lure the men into sexually charged conversations before arranging to meet them.

Former Dateline anchor Stone Phillips has admitted in interviews that "... in many cases, the [adult] decoy is the first to bring up the subject of sex".

So what to think of this?

As one critic, David Anderson of the Counter Punch website, says: "It's the ultimate car wreck type rubbernecking - to watch another person make life wrecking mistakes, to sin, be humiliated, and punished. What a wonderful feeling.

"Child molesters are our society's most hated members. Some of those caught in the To Catch A Predator trap are no doubt vile serial predators but it looks like most are just very sad and lonely men - virgins unable to get a date with adults, or often just reckless low class losers caught in a trap."

Brooker talks of the "overpowering whiff of entrapment ... the collusion between reporters, vigilante groups and police for another".

"And that 'attractive young actress' who greets them by the door: make no mistake, she's hot. And, at 18, she's US legal ... but if you fancy her, you're a paedophile," writes Brooker.

Here's the thing, however: no matter how "hot" the decoy is, no matter if in some cases the men are not the ones to initiate talk of sex, they are still aware of the decoy's supposed age.

In almost every case I watched, the men knew full well the girl or boy they were supposedly meeting was either 12, 13 or 14, yet they continued to have graphic sexual conversations with them, then drove to "their house" to meet.

Host Chris Hanson admits the men have some kind of "addiction or compulsion" because many times in chat rooms they will say: "are you a cop?", "are you from To Catch a Predator?", or "say 'hi' to Chris Hanson for me".

Yet still they come.

I have written in other posts that, while Australia is not America, we do seem to follow a scary number of its cultural trends - so I can't help but wonder if we'd see the same outcomes if a show such as To Catch a Predator set up shop here.

In 2004, Operation Auxin, run by the Australian Federal Police resulted in 191 Australian arrests "in which 380 computers were seized that contained 2 million pornographic images of
children with teachers, police officers and a director of three Melbourne childcare centres among those men who were charged with child pornography related offences", Madison magazine said.

A 2005 undercover sting operation conducted by Queensland Police found that "70 per cent of suspects were arrested within only a month of online chatting, a quarter were in relationships, and three suspects had young children".

Melissa Northam, team leader of the AFP's Online Child Sex Exploitation Team told Madison she regularly encountered "disbelieving and shocked families of the offender".

"Their partners usually have no idea that they were engaging in online predatory behaviour or downloading child pornography. The family's world falls apart when we knock on the door, so we try to help as best we can with welfare and counselling services."

I've used the internet for enough years to be realistic about how easy it is to find sexually explicit material. However, in all my time as a high-volume user, I have never "stumbled across" child pornography. I've never seen a single image I would consider suspect.

I've also received many emails and messages from readers and strangers - some of whom claim to be underage - and this is always a red-light warning for me to be absolutely scrupulous in what I say, and how I say it to those people.

My point is that you don't just "fall into" a sexually explicit conversation with a minor. You choose to go there.

And if you choose to go there, may the full force of the law drop on top of you - even if it's been brought to you by a TV station.

Post a comment

Comments Terms & Conditions

When posting comments on our blogs, you agree to be bound by our terms and conditions.
Comments that are offensive, defamatory, unsuitable or that breach any aspects of the terms and conditions will be deleted.

Recent comments

The concept is undoubtedly the most extreme form of reality tv, but almost every such show aims to gather society's misfits and oddballs so that the audience can be astounded at what people are like.

Take the tragics on the auditions for Australian Idol. They are vetted before appearing before the judges and because they have made it through the vetting stage, think they are in with a chance of realising their dreams. Definitiely a set up.

I just wish that there was a greater sense of responsibility in a lot of these shows. They attract members of society that often have mental or emotional problems that would undoubtedly benefit from some type of treatment. Yet the shows focus is on shaming and laughing or condemning these people.

Instead of vilifying the talentless or the wierd or the perverse, it is an ideal opportunity to step in to help.

I wonder....

March 04, 2010

05:46 PM

Sam - I strongly agree with the last few paragraphs of what you write here....esp. the 2nd last....the 'stumble' or 'just happened to wind up here' line is crap, I concur when you say 'You choose to go there'.

However I wonder....to what degree, if at all, has the internet increased this sort of behavior or perhaps it was always there to the current levels. Hear me out here.....

As a kid (I am male) I did the underage football, cricket and swimming thing with a few clubs and on top of that went through most of my school days in the all male catholic system. In all that time I never had an 'inappropriate' experience from coaches, other parents, teachers, priests or brothers and nor did any of my mates that I am aware of - sadly there are many who cannot say the same and that is an indefensible and inexcusable tragedy.

However I wonder about the role the web has played in this in more recent years... as in to what degree has the ease of access of perceived anonymity taken some men to places they may not have perhaps gone to otherwise.

I am not at all excusing and again say I concur with you that these blokes made a choice .....but has the choice been to simple than perhaps it was when I was a kid? I am not sure and don't have the answer but you are right - if you choose, then full force of the law.

hired goon

March 04, 2010

07:19 PM

Former Dateline anchor Stone Phillips has admitted in interviews that "... in many cases, the [adult] decoy is the first to bring up the subject of sex".

I don't like this. It conjures up images of predatory drug dealers, hanging outside schools, offering kids a free hit of heroin or crack...

With that being said, I firmly believe that this sort of crime warrants capital punishment. Such crimes destroy the lives of their victims - the damage is incalculable.

I do not think you can "train" someone out of a sexual preference towards children any more than you can "train" someone out of a sexual preference to their own gender. I say that as someone completely ignorant of sexual psychology.

JEQP

March 04, 2010

07:20 PM

Yes, they should feel the full brunt of the law, but that TV show was just grubby. It doesn't sound like it had any detering effect either. Although Team Atrox made good use out of it...

And you're right, it is pretty hard to "stumble across". In fact, the people who put it up go to great effort to make sure that it isn't just "stumbled across". More than that, from what I read in the news it takes more than stumbling across it for the police to notice -- you have to participate in a chat (like this one) or pay with a credit card.

heidi

March 04, 2010

07:21 PM

i was dropping a dvd back at our local bottlo/video store the other day & there was no car spaces nearby so i left the car on right outside & just ran in to drop it in the slot. blokes out the front of the pub next door joked that they were going to steal the car so feeling jovial i said something like 'you want the kids in the back too?' (just thinking that if someone was to steal a car then realised their were two kids in the back they be freaking out!). One of the guys joked back "oh no thanks you can keep them!" and then another one said "they will do". it made my skin crawl. What sort of man jokes about being a pedophile in front of a bunch of his mates???? i really felt sick.

just in my own life i have come across so much of this. my best friend found child porn on her then boyfriend's computer. another good friend had the shock of the cops turning up the door . . she ended up losing her sanity & son to the state over it (altho i do feel a bit sorry for that pedophile because he was sexually abused himself as a child). i once worked on child sexual assualt stats in NSW & could not believe the sheer number of cases to go to court in just one year . .
hopefully this show would make others think twice before acting on their sick obsessions

Von

March 04, 2010

07:35 PM

Sam, I've read your blog for a number of years and loved it.
This is the first time I've posted because I've never agreed more with what you've said.
I've sat in courtrooms for years and listened to the excuses of people who get off on child abuse, whether its looking at images or committing the abuse themselves. They deserve everything they get, regardless of how they are caught.
I'm glad you raised the issue because I do not think enough people realise just how many child offenders there are. And we are only seeing the ones dumb enough to be caught.

Mike D

March 04, 2010

07:51 PM

I couldn't agree more with your closing points. I've actively searched for lots of different types of pr0n, but not once have I encountered kiddie or animal stuff. I think it would take a deliberate effort to end up on one of those websites. This is also part of my problem with mandatory filtering - you're not going to "save the children" from this sort of stuff, unless the sick little perverts are actively searching for it.

Dumped

March 04, 2010

08:01 PM

I feel sick.

Dumped

March 04, 2010

08:02 PM

I feel sick.

lady luck

March 04, 2010

08:03 PM

when people are abused as children their self-worth is shattered, often for a lifetime. if it is not built up to a critical level they will continue to accept abuse, or sadly, abuse others. not much of this is a choice, moreover an instinct.

similarly while punishment is the observers instinct, i believe the real response should be rehabilitation. now that's one tv show i'd switch on.

Stormy

March 04, 2010

08:17 PM

US law enforcement agencies have been using all manner of entrapment stings for years, generally regarding drugs - I'm amazed nobody's thought of a reality show for that. Maybe a bit dangerous given the US firearm laws?

I thought the idea of this show, which I heard of recently, was absolutely repulsive. Why on earth would anyone want to watch it? To get their jollies from watching some would be child molester getting busted. Seriously, what were they doing before the program came along - hanging around emergency wards waiting for someone to die?

I have no problem with the idea of law enforcement agencies catching offenders out - but I have a real problem with it being made into a commercial money making exercise on TV.

Two things - "I wonder", I think you are right about the net increasing this sort of behaviour.

And Sam I wish I could say I have never 'stumbled across' a single suspect image. But I can't. And it made me feel ill.

RoryB

March 04, 2010

10:35 PM

I have no problem with the concept of 'catching' people committing wrong. But, the voyeurism sickens me, particularly as it offers nothing in the way of prevention.

People like these dudes are obviously not perturbed fear of getting caught - whatever it is that drives them is obviously a very powerful urge. For this reason, I won't buy an argument that says 'we are increasing the thret of 'getting caught' is a valid prevention strategy.

Society needs to understand what pushes people to behave in this way. On some level this requires some level of empathy and even compassion with the perpertrater - something we as a society seem pretty incabable of doing.

If anyone reading this is a 'they're evil sick freaks, lock them all up and through away the key' kinda person - just hope that it aint your partner, your friend, or even worse, your child who gets caught up in this next.

You might find it hard not to love your son even if he was a 'pedo'.

another voice

March 04, 2010

10:50 PM

It's horrifying the number of people who have experienced some form of abuse in their lives - our gaols are full of them, the bullies and their victims are in our workplaces, the RSPC is full of their victims, the homeless fill our streets ... the list goes on and on.

Whilst undertanding and rehabilitation are vital, the truth is that each individual has a choice about whether or not to take responsibility for their adult lives. Those who make that choice will stumble and fall but get back up and keep climbing up that hill - hopefully with the love and support of those around them. There is often a reason why some don't/won't/can't make that choice but ....

Children cannot protect themselves and nor should they be expected to. It is up to adults - parents and the community - to do whatever they can to protect kids from any form of abuse.

I couldn't bear to watch the program but I also can't find it within myself to disapprove if it helps to save even one child.

Eric um-Bist

March 05, 2010

01:40 AM

Wonder if they'll set up a Japanese version?

bad advice

March 05, 2010

02:16 AM

I went to school with a former Liberal Councilor who is currently serving four years in Goulburn for exactly this crime, grooming underage girls on the internet, meeting one of them, having sex with her and getting caught after the event.

Of course he claimed he thought she was older, and he was mislead but, he found her in a chat room for teens, when she had no money of her own, he paid her bus fare to travel to a seedy motel, plied her with booze, had his way with her then discarded her.

Based on what I know of this guy, I believe that it was something he was always predisposed to. Even as a year 11 or 12 student he was a sicko, he had his off colour sayings - "old enough to bleed old enough to breed" - stands out in my mind and his teenage fantasies always had a sinister or sickening side to them.

Most of the guys took him as being a funny freak and we all believed it was just talk.

As a father of two, I am inclined to say this show doesn't go far enough. I know it's not politically correct but, my instinct says line them up and shoot them before they act out what lies inside them. Perhaps the show is a good way to track them down.

Keep people excessively afraid of a very very rare occurrence so that you can control them into giving up their liberties in exchange for feeling safer - that's how it works.

These shows make people feel inordinately unsafe so that opportunist politicians like Conroy can ram through bad solutions like internet filtering that have no effect on the real pedophiles yet have side effects that help the politician immensely.

One day you may wake up and realize you participated in our demise, but you probably won't.

rob16a

March 05, 2010

06:52 AM

I saw this show in the US and it was car crash television. One guy even turned up to the 'date' with his own child who could not have been more than 5. If this program can so easily draw so many sickos out of the woodwork, what does it say about men in general? What the @#$& is going on here? Surely there is no biological reason to be attracted to children. It is utterly beyond my comprehension.

StevoTheDevo

March 05, 2010

07:58 AM

Very, very uncomfortable to read about this. I don't have a problem with the police using it to flush out real pedo's, but I thoroughly dislike the concept of viewers watching the process for entertainment (which is what TV is supposed to be about).
Next we'll have actual Car Crash TV, where we watch a car crash on CCTV then go in depth as the survivors have their lives mentally destroyed.

It's a worry that the guys getting caught even joke that it might be a setup by this TV show, yet still come out! Indicates to me that they have serious mental issues if they can't even evaluate the risk that it actually might be a setup.

On the topic of stumbling across porn,
I have stumbled across child porn, but only very rarely whilst scouring for legit stuff.
But when innocently browsing (as you'd expect a child to be doing), I don't think I've even ever stumbled upon legit porn.
To me, finding Porn is like walking through a city.. You know where all the strip joints and the seedy clubs are in a city, if you venture that way, you're likely to stumble across a new or unknown site, but anywhere else you're just not going to find anything, or rather it will be a nondescript building with a big "Member's Only" sign out the front and heavy security.
The "save the children" filter will do nothing to save children, cause the children who want to find porn will continue to do so, the children that don't, won't, just as things are now!

firemage

March 05, 2010

08:32 AM

Every time I hear about some horror reality TV show all I can think of is movies like Running Man showing us where we are heading. Do we really want to be a society watching shows like this? How can it be entertaining in any way, shape or form?! Disgusting.

Absolutely the police should be able to use tools to catch these predators but to make a reality TV show? Boggles my mind.

Sam you've obviously never clicked on a link to another page and then a link to another page in all your years of internet porn? I have stumbled onto suspect stuff and it was something that made me feel ill. Makes my skin crawl.

Name Withheld

March 05, 2010

08:40 AM

"Keep people excessively afraid of a very very rare occurrence so that you can control them into giving up their liberties in exchange for feeling safer - that's how it works."

(Bolding mine.) It's not 'very very rare' - we'd just like to believe it is. Predatory behaviour on the disenfranchised members of society from the dominant hegemony has been around since the inception of the human race: stats are that 25% of adult women have been raped at some point in their lives. How much do you think that stat grows when you not only make the prey 'inferior' (as our society considers women and feminine things), but physically and emotionally susceptible to pressure and influence?

As for thoughtcrimes, these shows aren't it. The people sprung by these shows have gone way past thought; they've put themselves into situations where they're inviting compromise - where they're practically begging for the situation to happen. And then they'll say, "Well, it just happened. I didn't mean it to go down like that..."

Well, actually, they did mean it to happen. They weren't just tempted, they actively put themselves into a situation where the temptation was likely to outweigh the risk.

As Sam says: "My point is that you don't just "fall into" a sexually explicit conversation with a minor. You choose to go there."

Slimjim

March 05, 2010

09:11 AM

I blame the internet. Back in the early 90s when I was a teenage boy it took some significant effort to get my hands on 'adult material'
Nowadays if I wanted to I could be watching or looking at who knows what whilst wife is sitting on the other couch watching TV. As useful a tool as the internet has been - it has certainly facillitated some of humanities darker emotions.

Niente

March 05, 2010

09:22 AM

Great post. I am not ashamed to admit that I have no sympathy at all for either men or women who prey on children and if caught they deserve everything they get. Capital punishment is too good for them but on the other hand, the earth's resources are finite so may be they shouldn't be wasted on them.

hired goon

March 05, 2010

09:38 AM

bad advice - there must be a correlation with wanted to enter politics and sexual perversion. I knew a bloke at uni who was active in Young Labor that used to spend too much time with a good friend's young (12 or 13) niece. One of the things I distinctly remember being told was that, in his opinion, a girl entered her sexual prime at the onset of puberty.

When I mentioned this to my friend, she simply said "oh, he won't try anything, we've known him for ages"

I don't know if anything happened, I've removed myself from that shower of idiots.

goodhabits

March 05, 2010

09:46 AM

@Stormy and anyone else who thinks this shouldn't be a TV show, why not??

Firstly it should be a good deterrant for anyone who is trawling online for minors. If potential child molesters are too scared to act on their desires simply out of fear of being caught, that works for me.

Secondly it raises awareness. Sexual predators come in many different guises and the problem is more widespread than perhaps people were aware. Paedophilia is not something a group of 20 year olds might ever think about or discuss, but since watching this show, it's something that my friends and i have debated and is now in our conciousness.

Thirdly, and most importantly, it is great TV. The stupidity of the perps, how submissive they are when confronted by the host, the trickery of the decoys, it all adds up very neatly.

As I understand it there is no profile of a paedophile that police can use to try and catch them before they do more damage than they already have. I also understand that there is no common way of rehabilitating paedophiles so they don't reoffend.

I don't care who starts a sexual conversation it is important to understand what is appropriate and what is inappropriate. End the conversation and no one gets hurt.

String them up and the problem is solved.

martin

March 05, 2010

09:52 AM

If only we had this sort of justice for those at the top. I find the morality of the average person to be severely lacking as well which is I guess why I do have empathy for these types, even if I myself would rather neck myself than be involved in it.

If there was actual justice for *everyone* in the world then I'd be for it. But there ain't.

I hate the left and how they immediately label you a racist as soon as you bring up an anti immigration stance but on this one I'm with them.

katea

March 05, 2010

10:01 AM

So scary how many revolting people are out there - and yes, they are the lowest of the low.
People who put pictures of their children with no clothes on facebook and kid themselves it's private should take note.

Shelby

March 05, 2010

10:14 AM

I remember watching this, or something like it, a few years ago. It didn't feel like voyeurism. It was, in fact, a big eye opener for me. There was no way I felt sorry for the rabbi or the lawyer or the family man.

But part of one sting involved a police officer joining an internet paedophile ring where the poor bastard had to gain the trust of these men for many months. The scariest thing was the entitlement these men felt to prey on children claiming that the boys and girls that they saw frolicking in the park or swimming at the beach were actually being sexually provocative.

And if you internet adult porn consumers actually believe that the women you are watching are really enjoying having every orofice penetrated at once, then you're as deluded as the paedophile. Or maybe you just don't care because you're entitled to your own sexual gratification no matter what the cost, right?

HIM

March 05, 2010

10:21 AM

The whole entrapment issue does not sit right with me but I have to say it probably does more good than harm in this case. But there are the operative words “IN THIS CASE”. Yes child protection is a must and I would say that these shows would have to be fairly effective at reducing the number of people vetting children for sex.

But how far do we take it? Drugs are bad too, should entrapment be allowed there? If not why not? Both can do massive and long lasting damage to our children so if you can do it on one front why not another?

And then you outsource this entrapment to producers trying to make ratings and we end up with shows with the integrity/impartiality of Today tonight, ACA getting people arrested.

Laws are there for a reason and there can be a case that every law needs bending to ensure the greater good but how far is to far?

As to what I have seen, I once got a pop up off a site and it was a list of other porn sites with a little picky for each. While not exactly child porn one had a picture from one of those kiddy beauty pagents, so while not exactly child porn given its surroundings I would say it is. I did wonder if I should do something about it maybe tell some authority, I of course did nothing because who wants their name/reputation in anyway associated with child porn???? Not this little black duck.

J.

March 05, 2010

10:31 AM

OK lets look at the basics of this.
NOBODY can be unaware of the rules/law about this stuff.

Sam is right, i find it very difficult to believe that anyone could just stumble upon this stuff accidently.

EVERYBODY should be aware that possesing any of these images is highly illegal, not to mention horribly immoral.

I can't think of any excuse that would cut it.

shevek

March 05, 2010

10:41 AM

bottom line -And if you choose to go there, may the full force of the law drop on top of you - even if it's been brought to you by a TV station.

full stop.

Thursty

March 05, 2010

10:43 AM

I disagree with the show. The fact that someones making money out of the entrapment situation it's disgusting.

Let me just say for the record, I do not condone anyform of action that these people take with minors.

However, this sort of fishing, should be left to the authorities, not companies making a buck out of this sick form of "entertainment"

I'd like to remind you all that we live in a society with laws. The law is there to protect us all. A tv show about entrapment, does not protect the people involved. Although I'm sure the majority of people might be guilty, the law protects them until they have their day in court. This sort of television helps cultivate the lynch mob mentality. When I bet there is a section of the community that is loving the lynch mob feeling watching it, there may even be a section of society, the pedophiles, taking notes from the show, about how they can improve their unlawful activities....

The whole concept is wrong, and like everything today, based on Fricken money.

firemage

March 05, 2010

11:27 AM

Shelby
March 05, 201010:14 AM

There's a HUGE difference between consensual sexual activity and forced sexual activity of any type. We all like different things in the bedroom so let's not judge too harshly hmm?? Some people love group sex, others will never go beyond 1 on 1 missionary. And you know what? That's perfectly okay as long as everyone is safe, consensual and happy with their activities! Main word there being Consensual.

Ronaldo

March 05, 2010

11:34 AM

Glad you brought this up. It is frightening how these predators have a "system" on how to attract their victims.

I'm a long time subscriber to Category 2 material, in print and digital, but never come across child stuff.

I've warned my sisters to keep an eye on my nephews/neices net usage. I've alerted them to ChatRoullete as well.

nelly

March 05, 2010

11:52 AM

I find it offensive that any such thing should be packaged as entertainment. It is not entertaining and to present it as such risks desensitising people to the enormity of the crime.

What do people experience when they watch this? Thrilling horror, virtuous superiority, a false sense that their own children are safe because they are not on the internet?

Then they turn it off and have a cup of tea and watch a show about people losing weight or dancing or cooking.

Children are at most risk from known, trusted adults.

FakeName

March 05, 2010

12:20 PM

I'm a bit uneasy as to whether this sort of transgression can be defined as a thought crime or not...we clearly as a society tend to have almost no tolerance for anyone who even so much as entertains thoughts about sexual activity with minors, but does that justify the 'string 'em up' attitudes some people have expressed here? As abhorrent as the mindset of the paedophile who sees a sexual come-hither in every 12 year old girl at the beach is, I think we're too quick to tag every offender with the label of inhuman monster. I'm sure many of you have entertained thoughts of violence, maybe you've even acted on them...are you the same as that twitchy guy at the bar who's just waiting for an excuse to glass someone?

I think anyone who has sexual thoughts about a minor is grossly ill, but we thought the same about homosexuals only 50 years ago. Who's to say this behaviour isn't hard-wired in some? That doesn't make it any less vile or unacceptable, but we must be careful not to make monsters out of people for their thoughts alone...they need treatment, just like the psychotics who commit murder. Parents might err on the side of caution and disgust, and agitate for these people to be hung, drawn and quartered; I'm not a parent, so I can't possible understand the strength of your protective instincts, but if paedophiles really are sick, then they need to be removed from society and treated, not vilified. As we've seen here, anyone could have these thoughts...it's dangerous to define offenders as somehow other or manifestly distinct from you and me.

Mike D

March 05, 2010

12:49 PM

Name Withheld, March 05, 2010 08:40 AM
"stats are that 25% of adult women have been raped at some point in their lives."

Lies, damn lies and statistics. I'm sure there are lots of instances where the victim hasn't reported the crime, and I think it's an inherently difficult crime to record statistics for. But I think putting forward made up statistics like this never adds anything to the conversation. Would you also imply that 1 in 4 men have committed rape at some point in their lives?

Rob16a, March 05, 2010 06:52 AM
"If this program can so easily draw so many sickos out of the woodwork, what does it say about men in general?"

No, no, no. It says absolutely nothing. The vast majority of men have healthy and respectful attitudes to sex and are exclusively interested in enjoying this with consenting adults. Suggesting that men in general are deviant freaks and evil predators is an incredibly damaging path to tread. This leads to excluding men from more active roles with children and therefore deprives many of our children of frequent interaction with masculine role models.

"Shelby, March 05, 2010 10:14 AM
And if you internet adult porn consumers actually believe that the women you are watching are really enjoying... then you're as deluded as the paedophile. Or maybe you just don't care"
Believe it or not, but not all porn is degrading, exploitation of women. There is a lot of tasteful, incredibly sexy stuff out there. The number of owner/operator amateur 'cam-girl' sites shows that for at least a few women, the combination of money and exhibitionism is something they choose.

FakeName

March 05, 2010

12:58 PM

'Firstly it should be a good deterrant for anyone who is trawling online for minors. If potential child molesters are too scared to act on their desires simply out of fear of being caught, that works for me.'

@goodhabits

And herein lies the problem with the prevailing attitude towards paedophilia - that we encourage people who have latent tendencies towards paedophilia to keep silent about them. This show, and the style of tabloid-supported journalism that advocates witch hunts and 'I-don't-want-him-in-my-neighbourhood' type name and shame campaigns, are only likely to drive people with the potential to harm our children further underground - perhaps we need to transform our attitude to these sorts of mindsets.

Suicide is illegal, but we encourage those with suicidal thoughts to come forward, to seek treatment and help...we don't label them as sick freaks, because that will only encourage them to act out on their dark desires in private. What we need surely is an avenue by which those with these thoughts, who know they're wrong, who know they're sick, can come forward and admit their problem, and be identified and treatment without fear for their lives.

Perhaps we wouldn't see these cases of otherwise fine and upstanding members of the community being outed at age 40 or 50 as child predators if they were able to seek help for their impulses at a younger age, before they acted on them. This wouldn't mean permitting or accepting such behaviour...only seeking to prevent it from developing in a climate of hatred and outrage.

Just Me

March 05, 2010

01:14 PM

Great blog, and yep, anything that makes you feel sorry for child molestors is a bad thing. In terms of stumbling across stuff, in 15 years of being online, twice I've seen something suspect. It may have been adults dressed/made up to look young - I didn't take good look at the material in either case.

Shelby

March 05, 2010

01:40 PM

@firemage March 05, 2010 11:27

"Main word there being Consensual."

Yeah I know. It's a favourite amongst pro-football teams.

saskis

March 05, 2010

02:00 PM

YUK! Sick people and sick show.

Johnny

March 05, 2010

02:08 PM

Sam - no mention of the suicide of a 'suspected' pedophile targeted by the show, and the $105 million lawsuit filed against NBC as a result?

Police operations are one thing (issues of entrapment notwithstanding). But when the (sensationalist) camera determines the shape and focus of public prosecutions, we ALL lose.

M

March 05, 2010

02:23 PM

Mike D March 05, 2010 12:49 PM

There is a 0.03% conviction rate based on reported rapes. And that is rapes of women. With rapes of men it is even lover. How confident would you be to report a sexual assault on yourself.

Taking up a men's rights stance because you disagree does not make you right.

bloke

March 05, 2010

02:43 PM

horrible. not sure if i like this type of program to have entertainment value for the masses. i'm glad i dont or intend to have children.

CJ

March 05, 2010

03:03 PM

They do 'choose to go there', to the detriment of a child's weelbeing. I don't care how they get caught, as long as they do get caught.

Bruce

March 05, 2010

03:13 PM

Looks like the internet bloodsport of "pedo baiting", long carried out by the denizens of such dark corners of the internet as 4chan and Encyclopedia Dramatica for 'lulz', has finally gone mainstream...

Lili

March 05, 2010

03:28 PM

Under-age is under-age. Everyone knows its illegal. Therefore if you knowingly approach minors, even if its just grooming (which is also illegal) then low and behold you deserve the full force of the law coming down on you.

In the case of the TV show, these people were led to believe the subject was a minor, yet they chose to proceed and therefore they deserve the full force of the law. Whether or not it makes for quality viewing in our living rooms is another question entirely.

Jack Sprat

March 05, 2010

03:29 PM

That was chilling viewing.

Most of them seemed utterly normal.

Very hard to fight a knee jerk reaction in terms of men in childcare roles.

My child has a male assistant at daycare and as enlightened as I like to think I am, the possibility crosses my mind almost every time that I pick up or drop off the kids.

I have to admit, watching this show has probably strengthened my belief in the possibility of abuse. It's also convinced me that I'd have no chance of reliably picking out a paedophile.

It's so easy to rationalise that men should not be in daycare roles. Here is the gist of my thought process when I see this guy.

Why does this guy do this? It has to be really uphill for the guy. Judged and mocked by friends. Strange looks when someone asks what he does for a living at a party. Low pay.

Then I begin to wonder, should I worry that he's still motivated to do this in the face of all those obstacles? What's driving him - sexual desire or what?

I'm not saying that this is the right way to think, but it's hard to avoid. I'm incredibly risk averse where my kids are concerned, as I presume are most parents.

This show is not going to help quieten those thoughts, but I'm glad that I've seen it in order to understand what is possible.

Bigad

March 05, 2010

03:57 PM

Jack Sprat. My fatehr was a primary school teacher for 30 years. So what are you going to say to me about HIM!!!!! You shoud take oyur deranged thought patterns and have a good look at YOURSELF!!! That you can think that way at all just because a man can see himself having a positive role in caring for children marks you out to me as more suspect individual that the hapless child care worker you target so unfairly. WHY did you have children yourself???

Bigad

March 05, 2010

04:01 PM

Great! What we need now is a show where someone hangs around in a pub, buying drinks for an unsuspecting stooge and then encouraging them to drive home drunk! Whay a ratings winner when the fool runs over someone (hopefully a child)on the way home! WOO HOO and the cops are there to arrest them. AND the bonus is that the dead child has also been saved from being molested later in life - which we all agree is so much worse than death). Can't wait for that one!!!!

Farmboy

March 05, 2010

04:06 PM

@JackSprat

The logic might seem sound at first, but what about guys who become cops or soldiers? Hard, often thankless jobs, not particularly well paid and likely to change the way people look at you, often for the worse. Do you therefore suppose that soldiers are only in it so they can kill people, that your average police officer does it for the joy of kicking a few kids' heads in? Just because *you* can't conceive of why a guy would work in childcare doesn't mean he's a kiddy fiddler. It's panicked attitudes like yours that have led to children not even being allowed to sit unaccompanied next to men on planes, for fear that any one of us could be a paedophile.

Shane

March 05, 2010

04:09 PM

I was once playing stick cricket on Foxsports.com.au. 2 or 3 times guys I was playing against would ask me how old I was etc. - one time I was getting flogged badly so I lied and said I was 12 (I am 30) - this guy started asking me all sorts of questions and even gave me his phone number and said he wanted to chat. I told him off and went to the group chat area and warned others. I sent a complaint to Stick Cricket telling them that I think pedophiles are using their site as a means of chatting to young kids. I never got a reply. The point is these sick b@stards are everywhere on the net and there is no real way for internet providers or individual websites to stop them. It then comes down to individual parents to make sure they know what their kids are doing on the net and also teach them the good old "stranger danger". By the way, even though the technique employed on the show is entrapment in the extreme I wholly support it and believe that our law enforcement should be doing similar stuff to get these guys off the street.

Bigad

March 05, 2010

04:19 PM

Bigad

Well, I guess my first question for you is "Did he tickle your bum?"

Jokes aside - I know that I'm not being fair and I haven't acted on any of these thoughts.

I also think that the vehemence of your reaction is because you and your Dad have encountered a lot of people with a similar attitude to that which I've posted.

But what are you suggesting that I do about it beyond containing such prejudices in my head and not venting them? If you're suggesting that I cease to evaluate possible risks to my children, it's something that I'm not capable of doing.

I don't want to go too far down the path of "What about the chooldren?" hysteria, but I can't and won't stop thinking about their welfare. Thoughts as simple as "Could one of the kids possibly pull that plank leaning against the wall down on top of themselves?" to thoughts as questionable and critical as those expressed in my previous post.

You can fight this fight for your Dad against people who think this way, but mate, it's going to be very uphill for you. Most parents will always intensely scrutinise people that they entrust with their children.

I'm rational enough to realise that there is much a better chance that this guy is above board than a kiddy fiddler and act accordingly.

As to why I had children myself? I own salt mines and those little monkeys are the only critters that can fit in the tunnels.

Jack Sprat

March 05, 2010

04:44 PM

Farmboy

Panic is too strong a word to describe my take on this.

Re. cops and soldiers, as my kids aren't in the mix, I haven't given their motivation a great deal of thought.

But given that you've asked, the cop and soldier roles plug much more easily into the masculine (warrior) identity than a childcare worker and I think would involve less social friction for cops and soldiers.

Quite the opposite, I think that large parts of society look up to cops and soldiers.

Other motivating factors for cops and soldiers seem likely to be altruism, strong sense of justice, need to be a hero (see recent blog)and some of them probably seek control over others.

Shiftwork for police means that the pay would be a hell of a lot more attractive than a job in a long daycare centre.

I'm not labouring under the delusion that I can uniformly divine other people's motivations with any sort of accuracy but some roles are a lot easier than others.

Jack Sprat

March 05, 2010

04:58 PM

Whoops,this post was from me and not Bigad.

Bigad

Well, I guess my first question for you is "Did he tickle your bum?"

Jokes aside - I know that I'm not being fair and I haven't acted on any of these thoughts.

I also think that the vehemence of your reaction is because you and your Dad have encountered a lot of people with a similar attitude to that which I've posted.

But what are you suggesting that I do about it beyond containing such prejudices in my head and not venting them? If you're suggesting that I cease to evaluate possible risks to my children, it's something that I'm not capable of doing.

I don't want to go too far down the path of "What about the chooldren?" hysteria, but I can't and won't stop thinking about their welfare. Thoughts as simple as "Could one of the kids possibly pull that plank leaning against the wall down on top of themselves?" to thoughts as questionable and critical as those expressed in my previous post.

You can fight this fight for your Dad against people who think this way, but mate, it's going to be very uphill for you. Most parents will always intensely scrutinise people that they entrust with their children.

I'm rational enough to realise that there is much a better chance that this guy is above board than a kiddy fiddler and act accordingly.

As to why I had children myself? I own salt mines and those little monkeys are the only critters that can fit in the tunnels.

Lili

March 05, 2010

05:13 PM

To Jack Sprat,

My boyfriend used to work in child welfare and got heaps of questions from people about his motivations. I know his motivation, and it was absolutely altruistic.

The answer is not to stop men being employed in these types of jobs. Heaven knows young boys need positive male role models. We just need to be vigilant, do all the necessary police checks (don't cut corners), and ensure we have adequate complaint and offender databases with good data integrity.

We need to take responsibility for our children's safety, but not by over reacting or being hysterical.

Farmboy

March 05, 2010

05:20 PM

@Jack Sprat

All absolutely fair points, but it's easy to counter that there are a range of reasons why a man might wish to work in daycare. Presumably your attachment to your children springs from something more than a simple protective instinct - you likely get a great deal of joy from seeing them delight in the world around them, from learning and discovering new things, and probably also love being a part of that process. You likely feel the same way about any nephews and nieces you might have, you'll probably feel the same about your grandkids, and it might even extend to your friends' kids. Is it so hard to believe that other men might feel the same way, and that this could manifest in a desire to aid in the upbringing and growth of other people's children?

I can't speak from experience, I don't have kids and at only 24, I don't really know how to talk to or deal with them, but perhaps we need to consider the different ways in which we conceive of the male and female parenting instincts. It'd be a rare person who misconstrues the concern and care shown by a woman to children as anything sinister, yet we very readily will leap to that conclusion when the same tenderness is shown by a man. Do we just not think that men are capable of it?

I picked bad examples of alternative professions - perhaps nursing is a better example? What is it about the current mindset in our culture that prevents us from believing that men might genuinely want to help people at their most vulnerable? Given the dearth of men in our primary schools, this seems like a conversation we need to have.

Mike D

March 05, 2010

05:41 PM

M, March 05, 2010 02:23 PM
"There is a 0.03% conviction rate based on reported rapes. And that is rapes of women. With rapes of men it is even lover. How confident would you be to report a sexual assault on yourself. Taking up a men's rights stance because you disagree does not make you right."

Did you even read my post? I'll repeat it for you in case you missed it.
"I'm sure there are lots of instances where the victim hasn't reported the crime, and I think it's an inherently difficult crime to record statistics for."

Proving beyond doubt that a sexual assault was committed is incredibly difficult, particularly in the absence of witnesses or physical evidence. I think this is one of the great tragedies of this sort of crime. And I'm sure that this reduces the likelihood of a victim reporting the crime. What I disagree with, is putting forward random statistics as facts, when it's impossible to verify the numbers. The number of women (or men) might be as high as 90%, but we'd have no way of knowing.

I don't see how this is a men's rights stance? Even the rest of my post which defends the majority of men as 'normal' is primarily focussed on preventing a hysterical reaction and depriving kids of exposure to masculine role models in the early development years. Read some of Steve Biddulph's work to see why this can be incredibly important.

George

March 05, 2010

11:40 PM

I have to say i have sympathy for these men. I don't condone their intentions or actions in any way, but i don't believe humans can control who they are attracted to. Unfortunately, some men are attracted to young children and if the urge is strong enough that they act on it, it creates horrible, traumatic situations.

I try to imagine being transported to a parallel universe where it is considered monstrous to desire or have sex with women in their 20's. How long would i last before i was branded a monster?

Sure it's easy to dismiss pedophiles as being horrible people, but they are just an example of how chaotic the world is. We cannot control the variables. Bad things are going to happen and we can't stop this. I'm sorry if you find my views depressing.

big dan

March 06, 2010

04:15 AM

Rock spiders are rapists. Would any civilized person object to entrapment of rapists? Or child torturers? Anything that deters people from harming children (and that's what pedophiles do) is a positive thing. Anyone who attacks a child, sexually or otherwise, deserves the death penalty. Trap them, humiliate them, destroy their lives..whatever it takes.

Fluellen

March 06, 2010

08:56 AM

Firstly, Sam, you need to take the tale with a grain of salt. US “reality” TV shows (and there are heaps of these cheapies filling space) are notorious for their less than authentic approach. Eg, the trailer park trash dead-beat dad will turn up on another show having been abducted by alien.

Second, don’t get away from that the overwhelming majority of sex offenders against children are from their family; more often than siblings, cousins just a bit older than the victim. You actually know some one in your own family, and likely you're sympathetic to them (because you know them, and that they aren’t all bad) They aren’t dirty old men in a rain coat. More often your pathetic 19 year old cousin who had sex with 15 year sister of one his mates. Sex abuse by adults against pubescent childen is as always very very rare.

Third; sex offenders tend not to see themselves as harming the child, but can be almost pathological against other sex offenders. The imagined view that sex offenders “band together” is misleading (very rare). And bizarrely, those who chant loudest about sex abuse of children; well you ought to wonder. Think about how many folk were getting there rocks off watching a teenager engaging in sexualised talk with some sod. That was the real attraction of this TV sordid show.

Finally, Phillip Adam has long raise the issue that the sexualisation of children in the media and fashion industry is the travesty we won’t tackle. The TV show you described was just another example. The real perp. was the viewers and those who made the show.

Stormy

March 06, 2010

08:47 PM

Farmboy
March 05, 2010 05:20 PM
"I can't speak from experience, I don't have kids and at only 24, I don't really know how to talk to or deal with them"

Maybe you think that, but the wisdom and perception in your first paragraph tells me that if/when you do, you'll go alright :-) You summed up the joys of fatherhood very succinctly.

There's been a lot of predictable "by any means necessary" posts up here. It's such an emotive topic that that isn't surprising, but please. Is it the worst crime in the book? Me, I'm still voting for murder. So why don't we set up a murder conspiracy sting show? Let's get jealous wives, frustrated work underlings, drug lords, and entrap them into handing over money to a fake hitman. That'll rate its tits off, judging by the degree of support for this appalling show.

Note, it's the actual show I find appalling. I am only unenthralled at the concept of entrapping men who've consciously groomed underage children (in their minds) on the Net into a physical meeting, seeing as police do it all the time.

The obvious problem with entrapment is that you are basically enticing someone to commit a particular crime which they might otherwise not have committed. Does anyone else have an ethical issue with this? Not just re child sex, pick any crime.

Groomers and paedophiles must be caught and punished, but I think getting off on watching them get busted is also a bit off.

The concept of entrapment is fascinating and is an ethical dilema in some areas of law enforcement. Enticing a person to commit a crime in order to bust them can be controversial. But the bottom line is children need to be protected, and for this crime 'whatever is takes' is the best approach. But I still think its a bit wrong to turn it into entertainment.

A few years ago there was a UK(?) show called 'Entrapment'. They left a Porsche unlocked with a camera on it and the person who tried to steal it was confronted by the show's host, who was promptly stabbed with a screwdriver by the would-be car thief. Needless to say, the show was axed.

Elle

March 07, 2010

12:02 AM

Thinking about entrapment here, Sam, and now I'm wondering if junk mail I've received containing links supposedly leading to sites containing child porn were the real McCoy, or an attempt to catch predators out? I've forwarded these emails to the AFP, but have never had a response from them. Makes me wonder...

typingbob

March 07, 2010

11:39 AM

Oh, the irony: 'Cyber-crime cases ignored by untrained police' CARMEL EGAN
'The Age' March 7, 2010
This is a 'Sunday Age' headline, found at http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/cybercrime-cases-ignored-by-untrained-police-20100306-ppth.html The article states that Victorian police rescources for this particular type of crime is virtually non-existant, and if you were to alert the local police to it occurring, you'd be told it's a federal issue and nothing more could be done. So ... what to do? "... former cyber-safety project officer Susan McLean" quit her post of one officer (herself)in frustration, and now runs her own company spcialising in just this sort of thing. But the impression I got from the article was that she'd rather have remained a cop. But a rescourced one.

Jack Sprat

March 07, 2010

01:20 PM

I agree with Stormy, that is a solid effort to get inside my parental head and your nursing example is harder to argue against.

Here comes the ‘but’ - you're focusing on all the positive emotions of fatherhood. There are also a few negatives from time to time. I don't dwell on them, but they're there.

For example, learning that my newborn was heading for neonatal intensive care lurched my world like nothing ever has before. Don't want to over-dramatise, all good now and others have had it far worse than us. I don’t want to ever feel like that again if it can be avoided.

I read about some paedophilic atrocity almost daily these days. I don't know if I only notice more of these stories because I now have some skin in the parenthood game, or if the internet's traceability has brought these acts into the foreground, or if the incidence of abuse is on the rise.

For me not to spare some thought to the possibility of this happening to my kids would make me a pretty negligent parent.

Words like 'hysteria', 'panicked' and 'deranged' have been used in posts responding to my original comment. I know that I'm not speaking for all parents, but let me use an analogy to explain my perspective as a parent on this.

Cont. next post.

Jack Sprat

March 07, 2010

01:39 PM

Cont from prev post

You use a seat belt, right? Why? Well, it's the law, but you also know that there is a very small chance that you might be involved in an accident and be seriously injured. The seat belt reduces your chance of serious injury.

Returning to molestation, it's far more likely that a man will molest vs a female. It's not at all 'hysterical', 'deranged' or 'panicked' to conclude that there would be less chance of my children being molested were they not being looked after by men. It's pretty bloody rational from my point of view.

There's very little difference between the reasoning that made wearing seat belts a legal requirement and removing men from childcare roles. (I don't consider removing men to be practical).

The major difference is that wearing a seat belt is the best outcome for everybody (except cab drivers), whereas removing men from daycare would not be so uniformly beneficial. Some men’s (those who have the right reasons to want into childcare) and some children (accepting that some kids lack a positive male role model)would be adversely affected.

My children have plenty of good male role models on hand (there's an opening, Bigad) and I don't want to work in childcare, so it's utterly reasonable for me to have a preference for women to look after my kids.

And Lili, screening and databases are a fantastic idea and are part of the way forward. Never lose sight of what people have to do in order to get on an offender’s database. For almost every name, there are 1-20 very damaged kids.

Fluellen, I was very interested to read what you had to say. How were your conclusions arrived at?

goodhabits

March 08, 2010

09:56 AM

* Stormy
* March 06, 2010
* 08:47 PM

"So why don't we set up a murder conspiracy sting show? Let's get jealous wives, frustrated work underlings, drug lords, and entrap them into handing over money to a fake hitman. That'll rate its tits off, judging by the degree of support for this appalling show."

Been done, and yes it's awesome.
The wife comes home to the'murder scene' that the cops have set up, fake tears and all, and then her husband walks out. Absolute Gold.

AdamV

March 08, 2010

10:00 AM

ShelbyMarch 05, 2010
10:14 AM

And people who believe that women can't possibly enjoy that sort of stuff too are ridiculously naive. It's immensely insulting to suggest that consenting adult activity is on the same level as child molestation.

As for the show - it clearly isn't a "deterrent", as Sam points out. These creeps are aware of the existence of the show, and the possibility that they might be being set up, but they show up anyway. It's about entertainment. And while I can understand the crawling thrill people might get watching society's creeps get busted, I wish people would admit it for what it was - voyeuristic sadism. To bleat piously about how it's about "justice" or "awareness" is sickening.

PS - anybody seen the South Park episode where the boys lure a hundred paedophiles to Chris Hanson? "There aren't any brownies!!"

AdamV

March 08, 2010

10:59 AM

Jack SpratMarch 07, 2010
01:39 PM

How reasonable. Also, we can't forget that a large proportion (I think it's the majority) of child abuse/assault comes from within the family unit. As the righteous and noble father you are, doubtless it is "perfectly reasonable" for you to remove yourself from your children's lives. Statistically, you pose a danger to them.

JFS

March 08, 2010

11:42 AM

hired goon March 04, 2010 07:19 PM
"I do not think you can "train" someone out of a sexual preference..."

I would take it further, all forms of grooming and predatory behaviour - on minors or adults is intollerable. Completely.

But to say these people have a preference could be missing the beat. A lot of the time a perverted sexual apetite can stem from a deficit of comfort in another area of life. Almost always from a place of profound isolation and emptiness.

I recently found out that the old idea that a perpetrator is most often a victim first, is not actually a reality.
Apparantly the figures of offending victims is aorund 35% of total offenders.

Anyway you look at it, at some point the perpetrator passes through a moment of clarity (however briefly) where they know they need to make a change - and tragically, dont.

For those that have the courage to seek professional support, and do - well done, and keep going.

Jack Sprat

March 08, 2010

01:44 PM

@ AdamV March 08, 201010:59 AM

Can't fault your logic, but it's facile.

Why don't we just stop reproducing and then there will be no kids to molest?

To return the seatbelt analogy, stop driving and therefore no accidents.

Incestuous abuse is a different animal and yes, the child is often removed from the family.

Daycare is something I pay for and have some choice as to where I send my children.

As I'm paying for a service, why can't my preferences shape that service?

Do you use daycare? If not, should your opinion on how daycare should work matter at all?

Whether or not you regard my preferences as important to the issue, I can tell you that in my limited experience (3 daycare centres), two of three have been entirely staffed by women. Our current one was all female until about a month ago.

Maybe, as unfair and 'un-pc' as my opinion may be, myself and others who think like me are just quietly getting their way on this.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not about to instigate a campaign to drum this guy out of his living, nor will I pull my kids out of this centre.

But presume that I was shopping for a daycare centre and was comparing two. One staffed by men versus one staffed by women. I know where my kids would end up. Not fair at all, but pragmatic.

Seems that there might be a glass ceiling for men working in daycare.

dame

March 08, 2010

01:55 PM

AdamV is right jack.

You are statistically more of a danger to children than your male day-care worker.

And if women want to protect their children, all they need to do is "prove" this danger statistically and you will have once a month visitation with your children, overseen by a social worker present.

It may be Un-PC or unfair, but a mother would do anything to protect her children right?

Be careful what kind of stereotypes you wish to support, as it might come back and bite you in the butt.

Jack Sprat

March 08, 2010

03:44 PM

dame March 08, 201001:55 PM

Right in the way that he thinks that my opinion should be? Right that I should remove myself from my family?

Other than that, not going to 'bite' on this in a way that's meaningful. I'd have to write another essay and it's getting too unproductive.

There are undoubtedly flaws in my opinion on this, I've admitted this all along my noble and righteous way.

I've been honest about the way I think and I've kept my arguments within the realms of practicality. Ugly or no.

AdamV

March 08, 2010

04:29 PM

Jack SpratMarch 08, 2010
01:44 PM

I'm just saying, I think you're overreacting a bit. The situation I illustrate would quite rightly be facile - assuming a father will molest or abuse his child simply based on the stats. Still, how many kids are abused by male childcare workers?

But I know what it's like, parents and their kids. I'm not one myself, but I've seen the changes - good parents are instantly hit with an overwhelming urge to kill every other living thing on the planet to ensure their child's safety (slight hyperbole maybe, but you get the point). It's not a criticism, but it can make you reproducing types a little shrill.

And of course you have the ability - the responsibility, in fact - to send your child to the best daycare you can. Avoid the guys if you want. But I think it's a slippery slope to be on to start thinking like that.

Jack Sprat

March 08, 2010

05:17 PM

@AdamV

I'm enjoying the debate as much as you are.

I'm enjoying the fact that I can prop up a stereotype that discriminates against myself and still have people argue against me.

Bit like telling a black man that he can't call himself the 'n' word.

I've got to get something out the door before I knock off so thats me over and out.

Lots of people on this slippery slope with me. Ask paediatricians why they're trained to ask certain questions when injuries as simple as a broken arm present.

See you on the next blog.

PS, You never answered my question - are you a fanta pants?

Sss

March 09, 2010

08:32 AM

I have an interesting perspective on this. I was someone who was lured into a very damaging sexual relationship with someone old enough to be my grandfather when I was early teens. And looking back it would be fair to say that I went on to compulsively wreak vengence on any "sad loser" I came across. Trust me, it's actually not hard as an attractive underage girl to manipulate a man into actions that they are regret and are disgusted by when they take a good look at themselves. I know alot of people won't be able to fathom all this but I have met at least one other girl who went through and on to do the same things. It's like you develop the ability to sniff out weakness in a man who would otherwise never cross that line. And it gives you a perverse sense of power to be able to make a grown man feel so degraded. If you were to talk to many men who had a sexual relationship with an underage teenager you will find they are thouroughly uncomfortable/disgusted by what they did, once they get some perspective on the issue. It's worth noting here that paedophilia is very different from being attracted to a underage, sexually mature girl. Biologically/evoloutionarily talking it's not suprising very young women are sexually attractive. So all I'm really trying to say is the entrapment of these men doesn't actually sit well with me. Men should not cross the line by having a relationship with underage young people but it's not as clear of an issue as the abuse of children.

FromABuick6

March 09, 2010

11:01 AM

I think media interest in child predators of any kind is 99% attributable to the fact that nothing else shocks readers or viewers, except maybe cruelty to animals.

The day they set up cameras for a parent who has one too many beers, or a hard day at the Stock Exchange, and then beats up their partner or kids, with a team from DHS standing by for a bit of impromptu re-education, I may tune in.

Thea

March 09, 2010

12:52 PM

Great article, Sam.
I work and research in this area and you have hit the nail on the head when you say that nobody just falls into these situations.

Of course, they all claim they do. There's always some excuse - and some of them are so horrid that it can be all you can do not to leap over the desk and deck the guy. I have actually had offenders claim that the THREE YEAR OLD they molested initiated the whole thing, as "kids these days are so sexual" etc etc etc. And if it's not that, it's cause they were lonely, or drunk, or having problems with the wife, or stressed at work. My favourite ever excuse is the guy who (yes, this is true) claimed that he fell down the stairs, his pants fell off (yes, still true) and he just landed on his naked child. Seriously.

They will do any kind of mental acrobatics to avoid admitting that they were sexually attracted to a child.

Hired goon wrote that he didn't think that you can train a person out of a sexual preference. Well... yes and no. Sexual offender treatments show some promising results - the overall statistics at the mo indicate that they reduce reoffending by about 27% on average. That might not sound good, but it's a better result than chemotherapy for many cancers. Thing is, you can often influence how these people act on their thoughts. Some offenders are genuinely sorry and willing to work hard to ensure they never abuse again. Others... well, I wish I could end this sentence on a positive note but I can't.

dame

March 09, 2010

03:56 PM

It's worth noting here that paedophilia is very different from being attracted to a underage, sexually mature girl.

Sss
March 09, 2010 08:32 AM

This topic makes me feel so uncomfortable, that I wasn't going to reply, but I was hoping some-one else would say this.

I agree. And I think a HUGE part of the problem, is our inability to accept that adults are attracted to very young(but sexually mature) teenagers.

At 13, my sister was absolutely stunning, and had men walking into walls looking at her. They would not have realized her age(she could have passed for a 20 year old easily, as she was fully developed and 5'9''). But knowing her age, would only have(hopefully) caused them to back off. It would not have stopped them from feeling attraction to her.

We want to draw a magical line in the sand about when this attraction can occur, but there is no absolute line.

We need to get our heads out of the sand about this and realize we need to teach people WHY it is inappropriate for a 30yr old to be chasing after a 14 year old from an ethical perspective. To pretend that a fully formed female, who is young, fertile and attractive and beginning to be sexually active isn't going to be looked at by older males is ridiculous.(And vice versa can be true also). It comes down to sexual ethics and teaching people why something is or is not appropriate.

Underdeveloped children are a different matter, and I don't think we quite know why that occurs. I'd like to see if we can figure it out, so we can stop it.

Thea

March 09, 2010

05:34 PM

Sss said that the abuse of "underage young people" is "not as clear of an issue as the abuse of children".

Sorry, but it is. Where do you draw the line between a child and an "underage young person" (basically, a child by another name)?

Dame says "underdeveloped children are a different matter"... but again, why?

The reasoning here seems to boil down to "grass on the pitch, so let's play" argument. But this reasoning is very flawed. Hypothetical case in point:

Girl A is 12 and looks older, she has breasts and has started having periods. Girl B is 12 and looks like a little girl, has not developed breasts or started to have periods. So it would be LESS damaging for Girl A to be abused by an older person than Girl B? It's more understandable that an adult knowing the law and societal conventions would just go "well, she LOOKS old enough so she must be old enough"?? No way.

Sex offenders themselves will try to use these arguments. Can't tell you how many times some guy has stated that "I'm not a paedophile - she was 13! Paedophiles are the guys who abuse kids who are like 8" or some such flaccid reasoning.

The sad truth is that it's not about biological readiness as much as about the massive power and knowledge differential between a child (or "underage young person") and the adult. There are no excuses, no justifications, and no, I repeat NO escape clauses when you're dealing with someone under the age of consent.

That said - I am uncomfortable with setting people up and putting them on TV.

dame

March 10, 2010

02:07 AM

Dame says "underdeveloped children are a different matter"... but again, why?

Thea
March 09, 2010 05:34 PM

Why? Because there is a difference between a 2 yr old and a 14 yrd old.And it's a difference most parents don't want to admit to.

I went to a Bar, at 13. Blame my parents if you want. I had 22 yr olds hitting on me. They weren't pedophiles. They thought I was 18 yrs at least. I looked it. The age of consent in Australia is 16 yrs of age. 13 yr olds, can look 16 if they want to.

There was a legal matter in the US. An Australian woman dated a young man in America. He told her he was 20 years of age. She was 25. They dated, his parents found out.

She is now doing 20 years in jail, because her boyfriend, who told her he was 20, was actually 16. She couldn't tell the difference and trusted him. She is in jail, He..is the victim. Many people called for the death penalty. The DEATH PENATLY!!!! Because a 16 yr old was in a bar, looked like he was 20 and lied about his age. We kill people for this do we?

That is WHY, this issue is not black and white.

Humans will be attracted to youth. Saying there is no difference between a fully formed, sexual human and a 2 yr old, is stupidity and self-righteous indigation.

I hate pedophillia, but I think it can be treated.(I hope)

Older humans going for fully developed younger humans is an ethical issue. Stand on your pedatsool to your own detriment in this regard. You help no-one.

dame

March 10, 2010

02:35 AM

Girl A is 12 and looks older, she has breasts and has started having periods. Girl B is 12 and looks like a little girl, has not developed breasts or started to have periods. So it would be LESS damaging for Girl A to be abused by an older person than Girl B? It's more understandable that an adult knowing the law and societal conventions would just go "well, she LOOKS old enough so she must be old enough"?? No way.

Thea
March 09, 2010 05:34 PM

You just hit the nail on the head.

Men will be attracted to fully mature females, regardless of age. Like I said, my sister was gorgeous at 13. She had MEN hitting on her. They didn't know her age.

Their attraction to her had nothing to do with her being 13. It had to do with the way she looked. A fully mature, young healthy beautiful female.You can pretend men SHOULDN"T be attracted to this, or you can deal with the fact that they ARE attracted to it. I'm not saying you should accept a man being with a 13 yr old, I am saying, if she is fully formed, don't expect him to ignore her.

There is no exact line in the sand. We make a decision about this line, in our civilized culture.

etoile

March 10, 2010

10:46 AM

Excellent article about an issue that I think about a lot, not least because I survived child sexual abuse.

1 in 5 women and 1 in 20 men have experienced sexual violence since the age of 15 years (ABS).

I don't understand the person questioning the stats. This is the most accurate info we have at present. I'm not sure why you think that your generalisation based on opinion ("The vast majority of men have healthy and respectful attitudes to sex") has more validity.

If these offences are under-reported, then it is likely that the numbers are even higher. I find this terrifying.

Child sexual abuse is so common that I have come to think of it as a messed-up kind of 'normal'. Between reports of child abuse currently happening in Haiti, the rape of women and children during wars, and US research indicating that a proportion of surveyed men (I can't recall the figures) would rape a woman if they knew they would get away with it, I wonder how hard-wired rape and sexual abuse is within some men.

I used to believe in nurture over nature but for something that is so common, across all cultures and socio-economic groups, I really wonder what on earth is going on. We need to talk more about this, as much as we hate that it even exists. We need to admit its widespread extent, and we need to understand it better.

Thea, thanks for your posts. Are you able to point me in the direction of any research along the lines of my thinking? WHY is this so common? What (if anything) can be done? Are there cultures where this happens less, and do we understand why? Can we learn from them?

Carnivore Gor

March 10, 2010

04:39 PM

I agree and disagree. While what these perverts do (or want to do) is revolting, the ends do not justify the means.

These guys are losers and they harbour some vile sexual preferences - but entrapment, while someone less vile, is just as predatory.

We all have weaknesses. Fortunately for most of us, those weaknesses are socially acceptable. I like my women fully grown and appreciate the wisdom imparted by age. If I had some cute 20-something female offering herself to me on a plate, I would drive for hours.

The fact is, the people behind the TV shows are pushing the "predators'" buttons and in so doing, urging them to act out their deviant impulses - that they might have left alone had they not been coerced. The only crime is imagined.

On the other hand, it is a good way to expose the creeps amongst us.

Thea

March 11, 2010

12:36 PM

thanks etoile.

You mighy enjoy reading "Rape, a history 1860-present" by Joanna Burke.

Aims

March 17, 2010

12:20 PM

So everyone who has an issue with "entrapment" (which legally what the show does is not), do you think we should wait until these men actually prey on a child before we do anything? Good plan.

Ministry of Truth

March 25, 2010

08:34 AM

Thea, March 09, 2010, 12:52 PM

Gee, I thought those in Child Protection believed some fairly wild fantasies. Especially if it in a DoCS report.

I am sure if DoCS wrote the Sun was the centre of the universe the police would threaten to take the children from all the astronomers that did not agree. Any they could not coerce would be burnt at the stake. To be treated as Gods is more important than the children (Exodus 20-5).

After all we couldn't bring our kids up with heretical ideals of truth and science when we can control the children to enforce our dogma / lies? Eh Giordano?

If people complain about DoCS the lies are relabeled 'mis-communication' then its apparently not considered providing false evidence.

Much like how the Ministry of Truth governs Oceania for the good of the people.

Did Lewis Carroll have a premonition of NSW Child Protection when he was describing how evidence is interpreted / presented at the end of Alice in Wonderland?

Its no wonder we see daily reports of harm to children with the fictional secret reports and unaccountability for them.

CCW

March 31, 2010

11:47 AM

Jack Sprat March 05, 2010 03:29 PM

Justifies his comments about all men

>Very hard to fight a knee jerk reaction
>in terms of men in childcare roles.

by media reports and stereotyping

>I read about some paedophilic atrocity
>almost daily these days.

When I was in my thirties I started a childcare course with my partner at that time. I had a job so it was just for interest. There were only a few other younger blokes in the class and the rest were young girls just from school.

After a few months all the other guys dropped out. Then my partner left the course. I only went for one or two weeks after that, not because I didn't like the course, but because I was extremely uncomfortable in a class full of young girls and because of sexist stereotyping like Jack's.

If younger women take an interest in traditionally male dominated industries they are classed as heros by feminists and seen as progressive by society. We are supposed to support them and even have "equal opportunity" campaigns and reporting to do so.

If men take an interest in what are traditionally female dominated employment areas - largely involving children and other human services - the prevailing attitude in society is we must be there because we are perverts or at least deserving of extra suspicion.

So much for progressive attitudes on gender equality.

Suspicion and stereotypes breed mistrust and hatred. No thanks - you can leave me out of it.

Comments Terms & Conditions

When posting comments on our blogs, you agree to be bound by our terms and conditions.
Comments that are offensive, defamatory, unsuitable or that breach any aspects of the terms and conditions will be deleted.